Indigenous rights: Crunch time for Namibia

THE debate and negotiations on a declaration on indigenous peoples’ rights is set to reach its climax this week at the UN General Assembly in New York as countries vote on whether to approve the declaration or not.

Namibia, with the San as its indigenous people, blocked the declaration in December after it successfully lobbied other countries represented at the UN to delay the declaration. The declaration is a result of 22 years of discussion at the UN.The reason given at the UN meeting last December was that some provisions in the draft declaration contradicted the national constitutions of a number of African countries and that time was needed to discuss it before it was tabled again.The declaration states that indigenous people should be free from discrimination and have a right to consider themselves different and to be respected as such.When he motivated Namibia’s stance last year, Ambassador to the UN, Dr Kaire Mbuende, said the country was “fully committed to the protection and promotion of the fundamental rights and freedoms and inherent dignity of all the Namibian people” and not just the San people.”Namibia cannot accept international instruments, or any law for that matter, that give particular communities and individuals in our society rights that take precedence over the rights of other Namibians.Moreover, we cannot accept instruments, national or international, that have the potential to erode the political cohesion and undermine the territorial integrity of Namibia,” Mbuende said.He said that the principle of self-determination only applied to peoples under colonial rule and/or foreign domination.Therefore, he said, the principle of indigenous self-determination as reflected in the draft declaration was “unacceptable to Namibia”.”Not only does it introduce a new meaning to the principle of self-determination, but it also contradicts Article 1 of our Constitution which establishes Namibia as a unitary sovereign state.The right to self-determination cannot be used to encourage secession or disrupt the national unity and territorial integrity of sovereign states on the basis of ethnicity, religion, racial exclusivity or any other such categorisation.”Namibia also opposed the declaration because it conferred “upon a sub-national group” of the nation “a power of veto over the laws of a democratic legislature”.”Article 19 of the Declaration is therefore unacceptable to Namibia,” Mbuende said.LAND ISSUES Another part of the declaration stated that “indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories, and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired…” Mbuende said that was “unworkable in the Namibian context”, especially if the provisions of the Namibian Constitution regarding property rights and state sovereignty over land and natural resources in the public interest were taken into consideration.Survival International, an international group defending the rights of indigenous peoples, said the opposing countries were well known for their poor treatment of indigenous peoples.In addition, a large bloc of African countries, among them Namibia, has insisted on a series of changes to the declaration’s text, which nevertheless still has the support of most indigenous organisations.”The declaration has been debated for nearly a quarter century.Years which have seen many tribal peoples, such as the Akuntsu and Kanoê in Brazil, decimated and others, such as the Innu in Canada, brought to the edge.Governments that oppose it are shamefully fighting against the human rights of their most vulnerable peoples.Claims they make to support human rights in other areas will be seen as hypocritical,” said Survival’s director Stephen Corry.In December, Corry said indigenous peoples have waited far too long for their rights to be recognised and that Namibia should be ashamed of its actions.At that stage the prime movers of the delay were Namibia and Botswana, both with indigenous peoples living within their borders and facing ongoing struggles for their rights to their land and to self-determination.”These countries should be ashamed of themselves,” Corry said.Survival said the declaration, if approved, would set a benchmark against which countries’ treatment of tribal peoples can be judged.However, it will not be legally binding.The declaration recognises the rights of indigenous peoples to their land and to live as they wish.It also affirms that, for example, they should not be moved from their lands without their free and informed consent.A group of African countries led by Namibia, and supported by Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Russia, mobilised the UN to delay its approval.Survival International is the only international organisation supporting tribal peoples worldwide.It was founded in 1969 after an article in the UK’s Sunday Times newspaper highlighted the massacres, land thefts and genocide taking place in Brazil’s Amazonia region.Today, Survival has supporters in 82 countries.The declaration is a result of 22 years of discussion at the UN.The reason given at the UN meeting last December was that some provisions in the draft declaration contradicted the national constitutions of a number of African countries and that time was needed to discuss it before it was tabled again.The declaration states that indigenous people should be free from discrimination and have a right to consider themselves different and to be respected as such. When he motivated Namibia’s stance last year, Ambassador to the UN, Dr Kaire Mbuende, said the country was “fully committed to the protection and promotion of the fundamental rights and freedoms and inherent dignity of all the Namibian people” and not just the San people.”Namibia cannot accept international instruments, or any law for that matter, that give particular communities and individuals in our society rights that take precedence over the rights of other Namibians.Moreover, we cannot accept instruments, national or international, that have the potential to erode the political cohesion and undermine the territorial integrity of Namibia,” Mbuende said.He said that the principle of self-determination only applied to peoples under colonial rule and/or foreign domination.Therefore, he said, the principle of indigenous self-determination as reflected in the draft declaration was “unacceptable to Namibia”.”Not only does it introduce a new meaning to the principle of self-determination, but it also contradicts Article 1 of our Constitution which establishes Namibia as a unitary sovereign state.The right to self-determination cannot be used to encourage secession or disrupt the national unity and territorial integrity of sovereign states on the basis of ethnicity, religion, racial exclusivity or any other such categorisation.”Namibia also opposed the declaration because it conferred “upon a sub-national group” of the nation “a power of veto over the laws of a democratic legislature”.”Article 19 of the Declaration is therefore unacceptable to Namibia,” Mbuende said. LAND ISSUES Another part of the declaration stated that “indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories, and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired…” Mbuende said that was “unworkable in the Namibian context”, especially if the provisions of the Namibian Constitution regarding property rights and state sovereignty over land and natural resources in the public interest were taken into consideration.Survival International, an international group defending the rights of indigenous peoples, said the opposing countries were well known for their poor treatment of indigenous peoples.In addition, a large bloc of African countries, among them Namibia, has insisted on a series of changes to the declaration’s text, which nevertheless still has the support of most indigenous organisations.”The declaration has been debated for nearly a quarter century.Years which have seen many tribal peoples, such as the Akuntsu and Kanoê in Brazil, decimated and others, such as the Innu in Canada, brought to the edge.Governments that oppose it are shamefully fighting against the human rights of their most vulnerable peoples.Claims they make to support human rights in other areas will be seen as hypocritical,” said Survival’s director Stephen Corry.In December, Corry said indigenous peoples have waited far too long for their rights to be recognised and that Namibia should be ashamed of its actions.At that stage the prime movers of the delay were Namibia and Botswana, both with indigenous peoples living within their borders and facing ongoing struggles for their rights to their land and to self-determination.”These countries should be ashamed of themselves,” Corry said.Survival said the declaration, if approved, would set a benchmark against which countries’ treatment of tribal peoples can be judged.However, it will not be legally binding.The declaration recognises the rights of indigenous peoples to their land and to live as they wish.It also affirms that, for example, they should not be moved from their lands without their free and informed consent.A group of African countries led by Namibia, and supported by Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Russia, mobilised the UN to delay its approval.Survival International is the only international organisation supporting tribal peoples worldwide.It was founded in 1969 after an article in the UK’s Sunday Times newspaper highlighted the massacres, land thefts and genocide taking place in Brazil’s Amazonia region.Today, Survival has supporters in 82 countries.